OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 01:13:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Catholic, Orthodox wanna-be here  (Read 1997 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« on: October 22, 2012, 09:15:20 PM »

I'd just like to say hello and introduce myself, and maybe get some feedback from anyone willing to listen . Smiley

I'm a Roman Catholic who's been studying Orthodoxy on my own for several years now (from books).  I've yet to actually step foot in an Orthodox parish, but I still feel it has had a profound impact on my life and my whole worldview.  For a long time I've considered switching to Eastern Catholicism.  I still have that in the back of my mind.  But over the past six months or so, I've been reading some Orthodox writers like Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (Intro to Orthodox Spirituality; The Mind of the Orthodox Church).  So much of what he writes makes sense and rings true to me, and yet I feel extremely nervous, because in the view of my own Church, I could be sinning by willfuly reading things that cause me to doubt the papacy and other Roman Catholic dogmas.  To put it simply, the schism between our Churches is becoming a source of huge anxiety to me.  I want very badly to become Orthodox, but am also afraid because such an act is considered to be very grave from my own Church's point of view.  What if they're right?!  Although I also seem to come across conflicting opinions on that idea as well.

Anyway, I'm probably coming across as a little neurotic here Shocked  So, I guess my question is for Orthodox converts from Catholicism - did you struggle in similar ways?  I just keep wondering if my uncomfortable feelings are a sign that what I'm seeking is not in line with God's will.  On the other hand, I can't imagine putting Orthodoxy back on the shelf.  I feel like I've crossed a point of no return in some ways and that I've found a "life-giving spring".
Thanks for reading
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2012, 09:49:46 PM »

Hello I myself am an Eastern Catholic, welcome to the forum, first off my friend I do not think you are neurotic the division between Rome and Orthodoxy can be very troublesome to people and a deep wound to the face of Christianity as a whole. I would not be so quick as to think that any anxiety you feel might be a sign it's not Gods will for I don't think The Lord is in the business of being the cause of any kind of anxiety rather he is the cause for peace. I assure you things like the papacy and the like are what all of us must face, but this is the reality ya know and we have to deal with it. I have already offered prayers for you so please be at peace while you wait for answers from actual converts
Logged
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2012, 12:09:44 AM »

What if they're right?!

I understand this feeling so much. For a while before I decided to convert, my husband insisted that I was Orthodox in everything but "rituals and paperwork." He was perplexed as to why I was extending the decision making process, when everything I told him seemed to indicate that I had already made my decision.

"But I'm not ready!" I insisted. And I wasn't. Even though Orthodox Christianity felt right, even though I found myself siding with the Orthodox when I looked at history, and even though I felt like I was growing more as I investigated the Orthodox Church, What if they're right? still haunted me. I tried to delay, acting like I was more on the fence than I really was, because I felt I should be more on the fence. I searched out histories from a Catholic perspective, to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Even after I told my Orthodox priest that I wanted to be received, I continued to get jumpy whenever I read about former Orthodox converting to Catholicism. What did they find that I missed?

Leaving the Pope was the scariest thing. I grew up thinking that the Pope was necessary to preserve the ancient faith--the various Protestant denominations show how you can stray when you don't have such a guide. That mindset was so hard to pull away from. And what if it's right? Do I want to leave Catholicism if there's even a chance that it's right?

But rather than falling back to the safety of Roman Catholicism, my indecision left me feeling like I didn't belong anywhere. I had to land somewhere, and I chose Orthodoxy. I'm glad that I did. I'm probably not a very good judge of neurosis, but for what it's worth, I can definitely identify with you. Smiley
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2012, 12:26:00 AM »

I didn't so much leave the Pope as I came into communion with the actual Pope (the Patriarch of Alexandria had that title bestowed upon him several centuries before the Roman Patriarch would assume it; Alexandria still retains it). Grin But to a degree I can sympathize. I always told myself I wouldn't leave the RCC for something more liturgically or aesthetically captivating (which is not very hard to be when your competition is the Novus Ordo, in my experience and opinion), only for something that is true. So after removing myself from communion with Rome due to various doubts that were not quelled after many sincere attempts from my father of confession and many others, I spent a long time (about 3 years) studying and feeling uneasy about having nowhere to go. Or so I thought... Wink

God be with you on your journey.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2012, 12:48:16 AM »

What if they're right?  Listen to this...

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences_-part_2
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2012, 01:03:01 AM »

By the way, let me introduce myself.  I am a cradle Roman Catholic who two years ago moved East (to the Eastern Catholic Church) in search of the Eastern praxis.  This year I have realized that Orthodoxy can only be found in the Orthodox Church.  If an American wants to understand Japanese culture, he needs to move to Japan and live it.  Same in our faith, you want Orthodoxy, you go to the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 01:17:19 AM »


Oh, those podcasts. I enjoyed them so much, I bought the book. But reading it caused it to take on a whole new dimension for me, and I felt physically sick afterwards. I had trouble praying. And it didn't help the "What if they're right" question, because according to this series, Popes have said that people choosing to leave the Catholic Church are bound for Hell.

I still think it's a good series. But it's quite harsh, so be careful.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2012, 01:37:35 AM »

You have to open yourself up to the idea that Popes can be wrong. Orthodox have no issue with this idea (Grin), but for Roman Catholics, consider the fate of Pope Honorius, who was specifically condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 AD.

(Personally, I would worry more about him and those like him than any layperson who left the Roman Catholic Church for principled reasons.)

Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2012, 02:35:04 AM »

Pope Gregory the Great said,

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.

Pastor Aeternus said,

So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2012, 06:07:55 AM »

Hello I myself am an Eastern Catholic, welcome to the forum, first off my friend I do not think you are neurotic the division between Rome and Orthodoxy can be very troublesome to people and a deep wound to the face of Christianity as a whole. I would not be so quick as to think that any anxiety you feel might be a sign it's not Gods will for I don't think The Lord is in the business of being the cause of any kind of anxiety rather he is the cause for peace. I assure you things like the papacy and the like are what all of us must face, but this is the reality ya know and we have to deal with it. I have already offered prayers for you so please be at peace while you wait for answers from actual converts
Thank you very much for your prayers!
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2012, 06:10:36 AM »

What if they're right?!

I understand this feeling so much. For a while before I decided to convert, my husband insisted that I was Orthodox in everything but "rituals and paperwork." He was perplexed as to why I was extending the decision making process, when everything I told him seemed to indicate that I had already made my decision.

"But I'm not ready!" I insisted. And I wasn't. Even though Orthodox Christianity felt right, even though I found myself siding with the Orthodox when I looked at history, and even though I felt like I was growing more as I investigated the Orthodox Church, What if they're right? still haunted me. I tried to delay, acting like I was more on the fence than I really was, because I felt I should be more on the fence. I searched out histories from a Catholic perspective, to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Even after I told my Orthodox priest that I wanted to be received, I continued to get jumpy whenever I read about former Orthodox converting to Catholicism. What did they find that I missed?

Leaving the Pope was the scariest thing. I grew up thinking that the Pope was necessary to preserve the ancient faith--the various Protestant denominations show how you can stray when you don't have such a guide. That mindset was so hard to pull away from. And what if it's right? Do I want to leave Catholicism if there's even a chance that it's right?

But rather than falling back to the safety of Roman Catholicism, my indecision left me feeling like I didn't belong anywhere. I had to land somewhere, and I chose Orthodoxy. I'm glad that I did. I'm probably not a very good judge of neurosis, but for what it's worth, I can definitely identify with you. Smiley
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's felt this way, so thank you very much for your response.   Smiley
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2012, 06:17:09 AM »

I didn't so much leave the Pope as I came into communion with the actual Pope (the Patriarch of Alexandria had that title bestowed upon him several centuries before the Roman Patriarch would assume it; Alexandria still retains it). Grin But to a degree I can sympathize. I always told myself I wouldn't leave the RCC for something more liturgically or aesthetically captivating (which is not very hard to be when your competition is the Novus Ordo, in my experience and opinion), only for something that is true. So after removing myself from communion with Rome due to various doubts that were not quelled after many sincere attempts from my father of confession and many others, I spent a long time (about 3 years) studying and feeling uneasy about having nowhere to go. Or so I thought... Wink

God be with you on your journey.
Yes, I've brought my doubts up in confession (in a general way) a number of times and have never received a satisfactory answer from a priest.  In a way I sometimes feel bad for bringing it up because I can tell they are thrown off by the subject and not used to being asked questions about Orthodoxy.  Roman Catholic apologetics is almost always focused on refuting Protestant arguments.
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2012, 06:31:32 AM »

By the way, let me introduce myself.  I am a cradle Roman Catholic who two years ago moved East (to the Eastern Catholic Church) in search of the Eastern praxis.  This year I have realized that Orthodoxy can only be found in the Orthodox Church.  If an American wants to understand Japanese culture, he needs to move to Japan and live it.  Same in our faith, you want Orthodoxy, you go to the Orthodox Church.
Good to meet you choy, and thanks for the links to the podcasts.  I'll give them a listen sometime soon and let you know my thoughts!
For years now I've heard about how Eastern Catholicis can often be a stepping stone toward Orthodoxy.  For me, I wonder how this iisn't happening all the time considering that there are so many Orthodox writings being used. 

I've also often wondered why Rome has seemed to encourage Catholics to educate themselves about Orthodox spirituality and attend Orthodox liturgies, and yet at the same time warns against actually becoming Orthodox.  Seems like taking a kid to a candy store and saying "look, but don't touch!". Cheesy  Very confusing
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2012, 06:48:17 AM »


And it didn't help the "What if they're right" question, because according to this series, Popes have said that people choosing to leave the Catholic Church are bound for Hell.
 

This is exactly what scares me!  It seems like a guessing game as to which side is right about the history of the Church. 
What is confusing also is that some will say that by joining Orthodoxy, you're not "leaving the Catholic Church", but in a way joining a different version of it, and of course others will disagree with that idea.  And of course Orthodox will say you are in fact joining the "catholic" Church by becoming Orthodox.

I believe Vatican II described the Orthodox Church as being in "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church, which seems to suggest that they no longer consider them "outside" the Church or that the two Churches are in a sort of "partial schism" from one another.  Yet Catholic apologists will say they are indeed in schism and that nothing has changed yet.   
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2012, 06:56:21 AM »

Pope Gregory the Great said,

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.


Choy,
I've also read though, that the context of this statement was a rebuke toward the Patriarch of Constantinople who was setting himself up as an equal authority with the pope.  That Pope Gregory was not referring to his own See in this statement, but bishops who would ascribe to themselves a level of authority they did not have.  I THINK that was the Catholic interpretation.  I'll have to look up more about that and the context of that.  Thank you for reminding me about this.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2012, 11:09:42 AM »

By the way, let me introduce myself.  I am a cradle Roman Catholic who two years ago moved East (to the Eastern Catholic Church) in search of the Eastern praxis.  This year I have realized that Orthodoxy can only be found in the Orthodox Church.  If an American wants to understand Japanese culture, he needs to move to Japan and live it.  Same in our faith, you want Orthodoxy, you go to the Orthodox Church.
Good to meet you choy, and thanks for the links to the podcasts.  I'll give them a listen sometime soon and let you know my thoughts!
For years now I've heard about how Eastern Catholicis can often be a stepping stone toward Orthodoxy.  For me, I wonder how this iisn't happening all the time considering that there are so many Orthodox writings being used. 

I've also often wondered why Rome has seemed to encourage Catholics to educate themselves about Orthodox spirituality and attend Orthodox liturgies, and yet at the same time warns against actually becoming Orthodox.  Seems like taking a kid to a candy store and saying "look, but don't touch!". Cheesy  Very confusing

Well, Rome probably thinks Catholics will just become EC.  But you are right, when one becomes EC one realizes that there is something lacking.  For the most part, ECs aren't as Orthodox in praxis as the Orthodox are.  Because of Latinizations, ECs often do feel like Roman Catholics with an Orthodox Liturgy.  That isn't the ideal but that is the reality in many cases.  There are a few notable exceptions but Latinizations are a problem among ECs and many parishes are affected by it.  And the bigger draw is what you said, we read Orthodox books so our intellectual training is from the Orthodox.  Then we see what what we read is not in the EC parish, so we end up going to the real Orthodox.

BUT, the Orthodox aren't perfect either.  They have their own problems, and some Orthodox parishes may even be worse than some EC parishes in some aspects.  So investigate thoroughly and make sure that if you do go to an Orthodox church, you will find what you are looking for.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2012, 11:12:30 AM »

Pope Gregory the Great said,

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.


Choy,
I've also read though, that the context of this statement was a rebuke toward the Patriarch of Constantinople who was setting himself up as an equal authority with the pope.  That Pope Gregory was not referring to his own See in this statement, but bishops who would ascribe to themselves a level of authority they did not have.  I THINK that was the Catholic interpretation.  I'll have to look up more about that and the context of that.  Thank you for reminding me about this.

The funniest part about this is that the concept of the Pope being the universal bishop is non-existent at this point in time.  Pope St. Gregory the Great didn't say that anyone other than the Pope who makes this claim, he said anyone who makes this claim.  He himself believes that even himself isn't entitled to such authority and jurisdiction.  It will take another 2-300 years before the Pope of Rome starts making this claim.  Given they have no internet back then, it would have been easy to forget about this statement.
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2012, 11:40:38 AM »

By the way, let me introduce myself.  I am a cradle Roman Catholic who two years ago moved East (to the Eastern Catholic Church) in search of the Eastern praxis.  This year I have realized that Orthodoxy can only be found in the Orthodox Church.  If an American wants to understand Japanese culture, he needs to move to Japan and live it.  Same in our faith, you want Orthodoxy, you go to the Orthodox Church.
Good to meet you choy, and thanks for the links to the podcasts.  I'll give them a listen sometime soon and let you know my thoughts!
For years now I've heard about how Eastern Catholicis can often be a stepping stone toward Orthodoxy.  For me, I wonder how this iisn't happening all the time considering that there are so many Orthodox writings being used.  

I've also often wondered why Rome has seemed to encourage Catholics to educate themselves about Orthodox spirituality and attend Orthodox liturgies, and yet at the same time warns against actually becoming Orthodox.  Seems like taking a kid to a candy store and saying "look, but don't touch!". Cheesy  Very confusing

Well, Rome probably thinks Catholics will just become EC.  But you are right, when one becomes EC one realizes that there is something lacking.  For the most part, ECs aren't as Orthodox in praxis as the Orthodox are.  Because of Latinizations, ECs often do feel like Roman Catholics with an Orthodox Liturgy.  That isn't the ideal but that is the reality in many cases.  There are a few notable exceptions but Latinizations are a problem among ECs and many parishes are affected by it.  And the bigger draw is what you said, we read Orthodox books so our intellectual training is from the Orthodox.  Then we see what what we read is not in the EC parish, so we end up going to the real Orthodox.

BUT, the Orthodox aren't perfect either.  They have their own problems, and some Orthodox parishes may even be worse than some EC parishes in some aspects.  So investigate thoroughly and make sure that if you do go to an Orthodox church, you will find what you are looking for.
That's a good point.  I'm trying not to idealize one side over the other.  Actually, part of what is so frustrating is that both sides do seem to have fairly solid reasons and arguments for their own case.  I mean, if one side was so obviously wrong and one right, this division probably wouldn't still be going strong after a thousand years.

What I keep coming back to is that there's no way to be absolutely sure and in the end it must be an act of faith or of the will to accept one or the other.  And if I'm really honest with myself about that, I know in my heart I will most likely remain within my own communion rather than take a leap of uncertainty.  I suppose that would make me a permanent Orthodox wanna-be. Cheesy  But I will continue to study the differences seriously and pray intensly about all this.  I'm sure I can learn a lot from being on this site too.  
  
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:41:18 AM by PorphyriosK » Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2012, 11:45:53 AM »

Pope Gregory the Great said,

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.


Choy,
I've also read though, that the context of this statement was a rebuke toward the Patriarch of Constantinople who was setting himself up as an equal authority with the pope.  That Pope Gregory was not referring to his own See in this statement, but bishops who would ascribe to themselves a level of authority they did not have.  I THINK that was the Catholic interpretation.  I'll have to look up more about that and the context of that.  Thank you for reminding me about this.

The funniest part about this is that the concept of the Pope being the universal bishop is non-existent at this point in time.  Pope St. Gregory the Great didn't say that anyone other than the Pope who makes this claim, he said anyone who makes this claim.  He himself believes that even himself isn't entitled to such authority and jurisdiction.  It will take another 2-300 years before the Pope of Rome starts making this claim.  Given they have no internet back then, it would have been easy to forget about this statement.
Thanks for your insight on this.  I'm interested to find a commentary from both sides on this statement. 
Speaking of the internet, I sometimes think about the fact that if it weren't for the internet, I would probably not have had much access to much information about Othodoxy or to very many Orthodox books.  I wonder how much of a role the internet is playing in conversions to Orthodoxy these days?  Might be an interesting seperate topic someone could start!
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2012, 12:54:17 PM »

That's a good point.  I'm trying not to idealize one side over the other.  Actually, part of what is so frustrating is that both sides do seem to have fairly solid reasons and arguments for their own case.  I mean, if one side was so obviously wrong and one right, this division probably wouldn't still be going strong after a thousand years.

What I keep coming back to is that there's no way to be absolutely sure and in the end it must be an act of faith or of the will to accept one or the other.  And if I'm really honest with myself about that, I know in my heart I will most likely remain within my own communion rather than take a leap of uncertainty.  I suppose that would make me a permanent Orthodox wanna-be. Cheesy  But I will continue to study the differences seriously and pray intensly about all this.  I'm sure I can learn a lot from being on this site too.  

Just to share on my journey, I have taken the Pope out of the equation.  Whether he is infallible or not should not drive my decision.  I know others will argue that it should, but what is the worth of an infallible pontiff and yet you are spiritually dry on your parish level?  Try going to other Roman Catholic parishes and try going to Orthodox parishes.  See if your experience differs.  Go where you experience God.  As Jesus Christ said, "seek first the Kingdom of God... and all these things will be added unto you."  When you find the Kingdom of God then you will know the Truth.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2012, 12:55:53 PM »

Thanks for your insight on this.  I'm interested to find a commentary from both sides on this statement. 
Speaking of the internet, I sometimes think about the fact that if it weren't for the internet, I would probably not have had much access to much information about Othodoxy or to very many Orthodox books.  I wonder how much of a role the internet is playing in conversions to Orthodoxy these days?  Might be an interesting seperate topic someone could start!

Depends upon the evangelization effort by a particular group and how they use the internet.  I find that the Orthodox have good, easy to find resources on the web.  Eastern Catholicism, not as many but there are a few.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2012, 03:39:38 PM »

Hi PorphyriosK,

Although I was baptized in a Roman parish devoted to the Archangel Raphael, I was never really quite practicing.

When I really converted, after many years as a Kardecist spiritualist in my teens and early 20s, I had to analyze the issue of which church actually was the church founded by Christ. I studied a lot, including the papal question. I will share some of the steps I took, although I know the path is unique for each one.

- First I put theology and ecclesiology aside. Roman or Orthodox, these are points of faith. Faith is trust you put on something that can't be intellectually known (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1). One cannot philosophically come to conclude what form the Church must have. You just trust it. Now, trust or faith is not put on emptiness. I asked myself how could I identify which church was the same as the primitive one without resorting to their inner metaphysical claims. I would have faith in the claims of the group that was the Church;

- I then started with the very basic: the meaning of the word church in the original Greek "ekklesia", which is community. Now, a community is something not supernatural at all and one can verify its continuity along the centuries. For example, we can see that the community known as the English people is the same that existed 500 or 600 hundred years ago. There are several social, linguistic, economical, cultural continuities. More radically, modern Greeks can be identified as the legitimate continuation of ancient Greeks, despite innumerable changes and even genetic mix. My criteria would be to find if any of the modern claimants could prove its own continuity to the original apostolic community. There is not one proof, but the accumulation of evidence is the proof in my opinion. Here it is:

1) Geography is not final proof but it is good evidence. The Middle East and Greece are the main scenarios in the New Testament, and what is the local form of Christianity? Orthodox. In fact, one comes to realize that the name "Eastern Christianity" is a horrible tautology. There cannot be an "Eastern" variation of Christianity because it was born in the East. If anything, even when legitimate, we can only talk of Western Christianity. Would anyone say "Asian Budhism", "Nipponic Shintoism" or "Indian Hinduism" just because these religions have developed greatly in the West? There is no such a thing as Eastern Church. The Church is a religion born in Jerusalem, in the Middle East, period. Only what is Western is a variation.

2) Language is rather important. The "English" of the Apostolic times was Greek. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic as first language, but even their conversations with the Romans probably occurred in Greek, not Latin. The language of choice to write most of the New Testament was Greek. Even the books that were not originally in Greek were eventually translated to it. Language is important here because a lot is lost in translation and the fact is that those to whom Greek was their mother-tongue were and are Orthodox. I always get amused on how some Romans think their interpretations over a language they had to learn academically should have precedence over what native speakers of Greek understood (some of it also study their language in academic environment). In a dispute on what something like "immaculate" means, any historical or scientific study must concede to the culture that actually speaks that language. The Greek understanding of the vast Greek reportoire of Christian texts, which includes most of the originals in the NT, is Orthodox, not Roman.

3) The West has clear signs of cultural ruptures: the Fall of Rome, an elongated period of ruralization with subsequent loss of literacy, dropping Greek which was the language of culture, in favor of Latin that did not have the same cultural density, hegemony of barbaric cultures that were not a direct descedency of the Roman Empire but interpreters of it, all this shows that the West was ill-equipped to actually understand the cultural inheritance of the Christian Community which was culturally hellenic. Finally, Charlesmagne initiated the "Caroligean Renaissance", the very first attempt to recreate civilization in the West. This had to be done through reinterpretation of the past since the Franks were not in continuity with the Empire as the Eastern Romans were. In fact, Easter Hellenized Romans can have a justifiable claim for cultural continuity. Constantine moved institutions and people from Rome to Constantinople, Eastern Romans kept the language of culture, never lost the main authors, never had to translate the main authors to a radically different language, at most adapting them to modern form of the same language. Basically, they knew what they were receiving, while the West had to guess. Augustine's prepoderance in the West is vastly more because he was an actual theologian (not perfect!) who wrote in a language we could understand (Latin) then for the reasons alleged at Charlesmagne time that Augustine was superior to all other fathers. They could not understand the other fathers because they were in Greek, and Augustine was in Latin. Also, Charlesmagne, out of ignorance or mallice, had made Latin a flag for his independence from the Easter Roman Empire, accusing Eastern Romans from "dropping the language of Romans", Latin, while, we know today that Greek was a Roman language as much as Latin. To sum up point 3: the West, as a community, had a clear cultural rupture with the original Hellenized Christian society. The East clearly kept a direct continuity.

4) Out of 5 major sees, only Rome defended its primacy in absolute terms, only Rome used the Filioque (first among Iberians, later adopted by Charlesmagne and imposed on his subjects and only much later accepted by the popes). The common Roman argument about both is that it was traditional in the West. Well, traditional in one region but not in all the Church is exactly what being Catholic is not. When this particularity is not content in just staying where it is and tries to pass as the catholic teaching, that's when you have a heresy of historical impact. When Rome made an issue of Papal authority, it went rogue against five sees and all the Middle Eastern (aka original) forms of Christianity.  That it was alone in that is evidence enough for me that the teachings about the Pope and the Filioque are not catholic, but outright heretic (in the original sense of the word, "choosing" parts of tradition that are convenient for the choser).

5) Biblical and Patristic evidence: the prefiguration of primacy in the Church appears in the Old Testament when in Isaiah 22:14-25, the Lord deposes the evil treasurer Sebna and passes the keys (symbol of authority) to Eliakim. The power of the keys is clearly dependent upon the quality of the faith of their bearer. The passage clearly shows that the power of the keys can and often is passed to someone who is more worthy if the bearer does not have the right faith. That is the case with each and every praise of Rome in the first millenium. All authority and recognition is given *because* of the Orthodox faith it defended. Unfortunatelly, at some point, this was inverted and Rome started believing that its faith was Orthodox *because* it had authority. Proper contextualization of Patristic texts inserted in the debates they were participating shows that. Another evidence in the New Testament, is that despite Rome allegations that some passages "clearly" demonstrate the absolute model of Church leadership claimed by them, we never see Peter exercise this kind of leadership. Also despite the "clarity" claims, even after Mat. 16:18 the Apostles are discussing who should be the leader among them. After the Pentecost, the only "council" we see is presided by James, not Peter. Peter surely is the most proeminent Apostle in the NT, but nowhere there is anything that even suggest active leadership. In fact, when I look to how we Orthodox respect the authoroty of blessed elders, even when they are alive, I see something that looks a lot more like petrine authority than any form of institutional leadership, even Orthodox ones.

6) Even if the "Succession of Peter" was a reference to this kind of authority that was later adopted to mean institutional authority (just like "Papa", also is a reference to blessed elders and priests, which was adopted by the Bishop of Alexandria and later of Rome), then we still have the issue that the Bishop of Antioch is also a successor of Peter. If succession from Peter was a sign of authority in the sense Rome claims, then the Church would have at least two leaders. Since Mark was a disciple of Peter, and the Patriarch of Alexandria is a successor of Mark, he too may claim petrine succession. In any case, if Rome *were* right and Petrine succesion meant what Rome says it means, then they would have to explain why the Patriarch of Antioch is not infallible and with universal cojurisdiction. The linguistic problem mentioned in (3) becomes accute here in relation to the Patriarch of Alexandria. Romans use the titles used to address the Pope as evidence of their claims. Clearly, byzantine used hyperbolic titles. Even the librarian of the palace was called "Librarian of the Universe". And since the times those titles were used to address the Pope, the Patriarch of Alexandria was and is called "Judge of the World", if all those titles were literal, like the then illiterate West interpreted, and not mere byzantine hyperboles as any Greek educated byzantine knew, then we would have a double-headed cojurisdiction of Antioch and Rome due to Petrine succession and one only judge of the universe above them all, the Patriarch of Alexandria.

7) Finally and not less important, the famous Mat. 16:18 passage. As a matter of fact, there are Fathers who say the rock is Jesus, others who say the rock is the faith of Peter and others who say the rock is Peter himself. A Roman cardinal, in Vatican I, actually counted and the "votes" chose the interpretation that it is Peter's faith. Second is that it is Peter himself and last that it is Jesus. But exegesis is not democracy. I looked for more credible authorities than the Fathers of the Church. And who could be a better authority on the meaning of Mat. 16:18 then a person who, not only was there witnessing the conversation, but actually was the person Jesus was talking to, Peter himself? In his 1st epistle Peter makes reference to the image of the rock ( I Pet 2:4-9), and who did he say the rock was? Not his faith, not Himself, but Jesus Christ. Peter was the one addressed in Mat 16:18, he is the one explaining the symbology of the rock. To me, at least, that is case closed. But if any doubt remains, we can check the Gospel of Mathew itself and the OT. In Matthew, Jesus did speak about someone being a rock before, in chapter 7:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Mathew 7:24

So the image of the rock was pre-explained in the same Gospel. Jesus, who is God, is the only rock.
In the OT *every* time the image of rock is used in the OT, it is to refer to God. Mat 16:18 is another passage of confirmation of OT: that rock of salvation, that rock David sang so many times in Psalms, it was right there, talking to Peter, in human form, the Son of God. To show the Rock of the Old Testament was alive and had been born among us, that is the purpose of Mat 16:18, as explained by Peter himself, not to create an ecclesiastical centralized monarchy of a bishop over his brother bishops.
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? Psalms 18:31
The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted. Psalms 18:46
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my rock, and my redeemer.  Psalms 19:14
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.  Psalms 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. Psalms 62:6
And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. Psalms 78:35
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Psalms 89:26
To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Psalms 92:15
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Psalms 95:1
Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress. Psalms 71:3
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? Psalms 42:9
In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Psalms 62:7
Blessed be the LORD my rock, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:  Psalms 144:1
From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. Psalms 61:2
For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock. Psalms 27:5
Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.  Psalms 31:2
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, established my goings. Psalms 40:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:2
But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. Psalms 94:22
For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalms 31:3
Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. Psalms 28:1
My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the rock of my heart, and my portion for ever.  Psalms 73:26

If so be ye have tasted that the Lord {is} gracious.
To whom coming, {as unto} a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, {and} precious,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe {he is} precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, {even to them} which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:3-8

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
Mathew 16:18
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 03:45:50 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2012, 04:25:22 PM »

Yes it was difficult. I told someone, and at this point I can't remember who, that it felt like I was going through a divorce, or someone had died. Calling it both, now that I look back on it, was very accurate. I felt like I was going through a divorce because what I had based my life upon, the firm foundation that I had been certain was never going to leave me and that I could trust entirely, was suddenly gone. Huge cracks that I hadn't even known were there started tripping me up and it was falling away from underneath me. That takes a lot of adjusting to. It felt like a death because I could see that the Roman church once had been what it should have been, once was what it was. It wasn't that way any longer. Someone I knew and loved was suddenly not there. Of course, it was a bit worse than that because it turns out I didn't really know them and they weren't who I thought they were.

Leaving Roman Catholicism was the second hardest thing I ever had to do in my (admittedly short) life. It was first until I buried my grandmother. Lean on God, not on a church (either church!) and He'll get you through it. Lean heavily.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2012, 05:04:41 PM »

Yes it was difficult. I told someone, and at this point I can't remember who, that it felt like I was going through a divorce, or someone had died. Calling it both, now that I look back on it, was very accurate. I felt like I was going through a divorce because what I had based my life upon, the firm foundation that I had been certain was never going to leave me and that I could trust entirely, was suddenly gone. Huge cracks that I hadn't even known were there started tripping me up and it was falling away from underneath me. That takes a lot of adjusting to. It felt like a death because I could see that the Roman church once had been what it should have been, once was what it was. It wasn't that way any longer. Someone I knew and loved was suddenly not there. Of course, it was a bit worse than that because it turns out I didn't really know them and they weren't who I thought they were.

Leaving Roman Catholicism was the second hardest thing I ever had to do in my (admittedly short) life. It was first until I buried my grandmother. Lean on God, not on a church (either church!) and He'll get you through it. Lean heavily.

I agree.  The first time I met with the Orthodox priest I told myself, "this feels like cheating."  Yes, the feeling of leaving the RC is much like a break-up, or a divorce.  I'm at the point right now that I know the relationship is over, but I still have to break the news and deliver the papers.  As firm as I am in believing that I want to be Orthodox, something inside of me is still struggling to cling on to Catholicism.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2012, 05:17:22 PM »

As another perspective, I did not have this heart wrenching problem that many posters in this thread have mentioned.  As many know, I grew up RC, was the best darned altar boy my parish ever had and ever will have (he says with humility), served at that altar of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC for a time, started to move my praxis to the east by attending various Eastern rite parishes (ultimately settling in a Ruthenian context because that was where I was most comfortable) and eventually just realized I no longer held to the office of the papacy as it was defined by Rome in 2009.  I was already Eastern in my praxis and simply started to attend the local Antiochian parish but then decided to try the OCA parish (they were both about the same distance from my apartment at the time).  I ended up being chrismated at the OCA parish which worked out because I had moved just a couple miles away from it by that point.

In short, may the good Lord have mercy on you.  In the words of an old Nike ad, Just Do It.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,520


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2012, 05:19:14 PM »

yes, joseph hazen.
remember there is only one God.
and He is not the sort of God to send you to hell for seeking a deeper relationship with Him.
follow Him on your spiritual journey, concentrate on your prayer life, read the Bible, let go of any pride you may have,
and He will guide you.
i, personally would not suggest that all catholics become orthodox; it depends very much on the life of your church.
i pray fervently that we may be united one day.
but if you are lacking the fullness of a deep relationship with God where you are, it is only right to keep searching until you find it.
may God give you all peace,
mabsoota (orthodox 4 years; previously protestant; investigated catholic church on the journey too).
Logged
Joseph Hazen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 150


« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2012, 05:26:29 PM »

Yes it was difficult. I told someone, and at this point I can't remember who, that it felt like I was going through a divorce, or someone had died. Calling it both, now that I look back on it, was very accurate. I felt like I was going through a divorce because what I had based my life upon, the firm foundation that I had been certain was never going to leave me and that I could trust entirely, was suddenly gone. Huge cracks that I hadn't even known were there started tripping me up and it was falling away from underneath me. That takes a lot of adjusting to. It felt like a death because I could see that the Roman church once had been what it should have been, once was what it was. It wasn't that way any longer. Someone I knew and loved was suddenly not there. Of course, it was a bit worse than that because it turns out I didn't really know them and they weren't who I thought they were.

Leaving Roman Catholicism was the second hardest thing I ever had to do in my (admittedly short) life. It was first until I buried my grandmother. Lean on God, not on a church (either church!) and He'll get you through it. Lean heavily.

I agree.  The first time I met with the Orthodox priest I told myself, "this feels like cheating."  Yes, the feeling of leaving the RC is much like a break-up, or a divorce.  I'm at the point right now that I know the relationship is over, but I still have to break the news and deliver the papers.  As firm as I am in believing that I want to be Orthodox, something inside of me is still struggling to cling on to Catholicism.

I know that feeling too but, as time goes on, I feel less and less attracted to RCism and more and more I find I am replacing any lingering love for that church with love for Western Orthodoxy. I tell my wife I'll get an "itch" for something Western, but I'm not craving anything from my RC days, but something from Western Orthodoxy. So we do evening prayer according to the Western prayers that night or something and I'm good until the next time I get an 'itch'. Just as the Apostles saw in their Judaism the prefigurment of what was fulfilled in Christianity, I see in the Roman church a shadow of what is in its fulfillment Western Orthodoxy. It's sort of backwards, because what they once were they have lost and is being resurrected elsewhere, but I still think it's similar.

So it's "meet and right" to love Roman Catholicism still, (and not because I'm saying you'll eventually replace it with WO) because you recognize within it something that is speaking for Truth, and it is so hard to leave something that is so close to being fully true. Especially when you think you can help it reach its whole potential.  We want to try and stay and make RC into what we see it should be. That's the same Christian virtue that founds homeless shelters and helps people get education or healthy. When it comes to churches though, there is too much fighting against us, and too much at stake, so we must leave behind the foreshadowing and embrace the fulfillment. That's how I see it anyway.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2012, 05:34:55 PM »

Well, I've moved fully East.  I'm actually clinging onto Eastern Catholicism where I made many good friends, including priests and bishops.  Which is why this process is so hard for me.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2012, 05:36:48 PM »

PorphyriosK, as you can see I am having a very hard time myself.  Take your time, don't rush into anything.  Pray a lot and open your heart to where God calls you to be.  Some people take years before they realize they really want to be Orthodox.  Some people become Orthodox only to revert.  Learn as much as you can about both traditions and be guided by love, not hate or disdain.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,162



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2012, 07:29:40 PM »

Maybe this site helps:

Journey to Orthodoxy

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/category/latest-stories/non-orthodox-christians/roman-catholics/


It has several witnesses of people on how the conversion process worked for them, classified by where they came from.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2012, 07:33:24 PM »

Hi PorphyriosK,

Although I was baptized in a Roman parish devoted to the Archangel Raphael, I was never really quite practicing.

When I really converted, after many years as a Kardecist spiritualist in my teens and early 20s, I had to analyze the issue of which church actually was the church founded by Christ. I studied a lot, including the papal question. I will share some of the steps I took, although I know the path is unique for each one.

- First I put theology and ecclesiology aside. Roman or Orthodox, these are points of faith. Faith is trust you put on something that can't be intellectually known (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1). One cannot philosophically come to conclude what form the Church must have. You just trust it. Now, trust or faith is not put on emptiness. I asked myself how could I identify which church was the same as the primitive one without resorting to their inner metaphysical claims. I would have faith in the claims of the group that was the Church;

- I then started with the very basic: the meaning of the word church in the original Greek "ekklesia", which is community. Now, a community is something not supernatural at all and one can verify its continuity along the centuries. For example, we can see that the community known as the English people is the same that existed 500 or 600 hundred years ago. There are several social, linguistic, economical, cultural continuities. More radically, modern Greeks can be identified as the legitimate continuation of ancient Greeks, despite innumerable changes and even genetic mix. My criteria would be to find if any of the modern claimants could prove its own continuity to the original apostolic community. There is not one proof, but the accumulation of evidence is the proof in my opinion. Here it is:

1) Geography is not final proof but it is good evidence. The Middle East and Greece are the main scenarios in the New Testament, and what is the local form of Christianity? Orthodox. In fact, one comes to realize that the name "Eastern Christianity" is a horrible tautology. There cannot be an "Eastern" variation of Christianity because it was born in the East. If anything, even when legitimate, we can only talk of Western Christianity. Would anyone say "Asian Budhism", "Nipponic Shintoism" or "Indian Hinduism" just because these religions have developed greatly in the West? There is no such a thing as Eastern Church. The Church is a religion born in Jerusalem, in the Middle East, period. Only what is Western is a variation.

2) Language is rather important. The "English" of the Apostolic times was Greek. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic as first language, but even their conversations with the Romans probably occurred in Greek, not Latin. The language of choice to write most of the New Testament was Greek. Even the books that were not originally in Greek were eventually translated to it. Language is important here because a lot is lost in translation and the fact is that those to whom Greek was their mother-tongue were and are Orthodox. I always get amused on how some Romans think their interpretations over a language they had to learn academically should have precedence over what native speakers of Greek understood (some of it also study their language in academic environment). In a dispute on what something like "immaculate" means, any historical or scientific study must concede to the culture that actually speaks that language. The Greek understanding of the vast Greek reportoire of Christian texts, which includes most of the originals in the NT, is Orthodox, not Roman.

3) The West has clear signs of cultural ruptures: the Fall of Rome, an elongated period of ruralization with subsequent loss of literacy, dropping Greek which was the language of culture, in favor of Latin that did not have the same cultural density, hegemony of barbaric cultures that were not a direct descedency of the Roman Empire but interpreters of it, all this shows that the West was ill-equipped to actually understand the cultural inheritance of the Christian Community which was culturally hellenic. Finally, Charlesmagne initiated the "Caroligean Renaissance", the very first attempt to recreate civilization in the West. This had to be done through reinterpretation of the past since the Franks were not in continuity with the Empire as the Eastern Romans were. In fact, Easter Hellenized Romans can have a justifiable claim for cultural continuity. Constantine moved institutions and people from Rome to Constantinople, Eastern Romans kept the language of culture, never lost the main authors, never had to translate the main authors to a radically different language, at most adapting them to modern form of the same language. Basically, they knew what they were receiving, while the West had to guess. Augustine's prepoderance in the West is vastly more because he was an actual theologian (not perfect!) who wrote in a language we could understand (Latin) then for the reasons alleged at Charlesmagne time that Augustine was superior to all other fathers. They could not understand the other fathers because they were in Greek, and Augustine was in Latin. Also, Charlesmagne, out of ignorance or mallice, had made Latin a flag for his independence from the Easter Roman Empire, accusing Eastern Romans from "dropping the language of Romans", Latin, while, we know today that Greek was a Roman language as much as Latin. To sum up point 3: the West, as a community, had a clear cultural rupture with the original Hellenized Christian society. The East clearly kept a direct continuity.

4) Out of 5 major sees, only Rome defended its primacy in absolute terms, only Rome used the Filioque (first among Iberians, later adopted by Charlesmagne and imposed on his subjects and only much later accepted by the popes). The common Roman argument about both is that it was traditional in the West. Well, traditional in one region but not in all the Church is exactly what being Catholic is not. When this particularity is not content in just staying where it is and tries to pass as the catholic teaching, that's when you have a heresy of historical impact. When Rome made an issue of Papal authority, it went rogue against five sees and all the Middle Eastern (aka original) forms of Christianity.  That it was alone in that is evidence enough for me that the teachings about the Pope and the Filioque are not catholic, but outright heretic (in the original sense of the word, "choosing" parts of tradition that are convenient for the choser).

5) Biblical and Patristic evidence: the prefiguration of primacy in the Church appears in the Old Testament when in Isaiah 22:14-25, the Lord deposes the evil treasurer Sebna and passes the keys (symbol of authority) to Eliakim. The power of the keys is clearly dependent upon the quality of the faith of their bearer. The passage clearly shows that the power of the keys can and often is passed to someone who is more worthy if the bearer does not have the right faith. That is the case with each and every praise of Rome in the first millenium. All authority and recognition is given *because* of the Orthodox faith it defended. Unfortunatelly, at some point, this was inverted and Rome started believing that its faith was Orthodox *because* it had authority. Proper contextualization of Patristic texts inserted in the debates they were participating shows that. Another evidence in the New Testament, is that despite Rome allegations that some passages "clearly" demonstrate the absolute model of Church leadership claimed by them, we never see Peter exercise this kind of leadership. Also despite the "clarity" claims, even after Mat. 16:18 the Apostles are discussing who should be the leader among them. After the Pentecost, the only "council" we see is presided by James, not Peter. Peter surely is the most proeminent Apostle in the NT, but nowhere there is anything that even suggest active leadership. In fact, when I look to how we Orthodox respect the authoroty of blessed elders, even when they are alive, I see something that looks a lot more like petrine authority than any form of institutional leadership, even Orthodox ones.

6) Even if the "Succession of Peter" was a reference to this kind of authority that was later adopted to mean institutional authority (just like "Papa", also is a reference to blessed elders and priests, which was adopted by the Bishop of Alexandria and later of Rome), then we still have the issue that the Bishop of Antioch is also a successor of Peter. If succession from Peter was a sign of authority in the sense Rome claims, then the Church would have at least two leaders. Since Mark was a disciple of Peter, and the Patriarch of Alexandria is a successor of Mark, he too may claim petrine succession. In any case, if Rome *were* right and Petrine succesion meant what Rome says it means, then they would have to explain why the Patriarch of Antioch is not infallible and with universal cojurisdiction. The linguistic problem mentioned in (3) becomes accute here in relation to the Patriarch of Alexandria. Romans use the titles used to address the Pope as evidence of their claims. Clearly, byzantine used hyperbolic titles. Even the librarian of the palace was called "Librarian of the Universe". And since the times those titles were used to address the Pope, the Patriarch of Alexandria was and is called "Judge of the World", if all those titles were literal, like the then illiterate West interpreted, and not mere byzantine hyperboles as any Greek educated byzantine knew, then we would have a double-headed cojurisdiction of Antioch and Rome due to Petrine succession and one only judge of the universe above them all, the Patriarch of Alexandria.

7) Finally and not less important, the famous Mat. 16:18 passage. As a matter of fact, there are Fathers who say the rock is Jesus, others who say the rock is the faith of Peter and others who say the rock is Peter himself. A Roman cardinal, in Vatican I, actually counted and the "votes" chose the interpretation that it is Peter's faith. Second is that it is Peter himself and last that it is Jesus. But exegesis is not democracy. I looked for more credible authorities than the Fathers of the Church. And who could be a better authority on the meaning of Mat. 16:18 then a person who, not only was there witnessing the conversation, but actually was the person Jesus was talking to, Peter himself? In his 1st epistle Peter makes reference to the image of the rock ( I Pet 2:4-9), and who did he say the rock was? Not his faith, not Himself, but Jesus Christ. Peter was the one addressed in Mat 16:18, he is the one explaining the symbology of the rock. To me, at least, that is case closed. But if any doubt remains, we can check the Gospel of Mathew itself and the OT. In Matthew, Jesus did speak about someone being a rock before, in chapter 7:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Mathew 7:24

So the image of the rock was pre-explained in the same Gospel. Jesus, who is God, is the only rock.
In the OT *every* time the image of rock is used in the OT, it is to refer to God. Mat 16:18 is another passage of confirmation of OT: that rock of salvation, that rock David sang so many times in Psalms, it was right there, talking to Peter, in human form, the Son of God. To show the Rock of the Old Testament was alive and had been born among us, that is the purpose of Mat 16:18, as explained by Peter himself, not to create an ecclesiastical centralized monarchy of a bishop over his brother bishops.
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? Psalms 18:31
The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted. Psalms 18:46
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my rock, and my redeemer.  Psalms 19:14
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.  Psalms 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. Psalms 62:6
And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. Psalms 78:35
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Psalms 89:26
To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him. Psalms 92:15
O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Psalms 95:1
Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress. Psalms 71:3
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? Psalms 42:9
In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Psalms 62:7
Blessed be the LORD my rock, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:  Psalms 144:1
From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. Psalms 61:2
For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock. Psalms 27:5
Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.  Psalms 31:2
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, established my goings. Psalms 40:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:2
But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. Psalms 94:22
For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalms 31:3
Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. Psalms 28:1
My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the rock of my heart, and my portion for ever.  Psalms 73:26

If so be ye have tasted that the Lord {is} gracious.
To whom coming, {as unto} a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, {and} precious,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe {he is} precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, {even to them} which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:3-8

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. {Peter: this name signifies a rock}
Mathew 16:18
Fabio,
It would be really difficult for me to respond to all the points you've made here, but I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and how you came to your decision.  You've definitely given me alot to ponder!  Thank you Smiley
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2012, 07:42:07 PM »

Thanks to all who've posted so far.  It's been great to receive so much input and hear about a range of experiences.

I have another question.  I guess it might be highly personal, so if it is, don't reply.  I'm just wondering if while you were investigating Orthodoxy and having doubts about Catholicism, did you continue to receive Communion in your Catholic parish? 
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2012, 08:48:31 PM »

No. It would not have been right to do so, in my view. I may have many disagreements with the Roman church, but I do respect her sacraments and the rules regarding receiving them.
Logged

Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2012, 10:01:05 PM »

I'm just wondering if while you were investigating Orthodoxy and having doubts about Catholicism, did you continue to receive Communion in your Catholic parish? 

That depends on what point in my investigation you're talking about. There was a period where I was investigating Orthodoxy, and was starting to have some doubts, but I still considered myself Catholic. I still received Communion, then. But there was a point when I felt like I had alienated myself from the Catholic Church, even though I still hadn't decided to become Orthodox. When I felt like I could no longer confess to a Catholic priest, I knew I could no longer commune. Making a decision felt a lot more urgent after that.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2012, 01:00:08 AM »

I'm still receiving Communion.  As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything, I'm still holding out hope that I can still remain Eastern Catholic.  I am hoping that I can live the Orthodox faith in the Eastern Catholic Church.  I think my answer will come soon.  When there is clarity that my EC Church doesn't exactly profess the entirety of Orthodox faith, then it tells me two things.  First, I am no longer in communion with them.  Second, time make the jump official into Orthodoxy.
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2012, 09:01:43 AM »

No. It would not have been right to do so, in my view. I may have many disagreements with the Roman church, but I do respect her sacraments and the rules regarding receiving them.
I respect that you have respect for those sacraments.  Well said. Smiley
Logged
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2012, 09:06:24 AM »

I'm just wondering if while you were investigating Orthodoxy and having doubts about Catholicism, did you continue to receive Communion in your Catholic parish? 

That depends on what point in my investigation you're talking about. There was a period where I was investigating Orthodoxy, and was starting to have some doubts, but I still considered myself Catholic. I still received Communion, then. But there was a point when I felt like I had alienated myself from the Catholic Church, even though I still hadn't decided to become Orthodox. When I felt like I could no longer confess to a Catholic priest, I knew I could no longer commune. Making a decision felt a lot more urgent after that.
Thank you.  I do consider myself Catholic and am still attending mass regularly.  I'm a Catholic who's dealing with alot of questions, but would have no intention of leaving unless I became convinced that I was in the wrong place.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2012, 09:18:44 AM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything

What about Orthodox ecclesiology?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 09:19:30 AM by Alpo » Logged

PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 39



« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2012, 09:35:54 AM »

I'm still receiving Communion.  As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything, I'm still holding out hope that I can still remain Eastern Catholic.  I am hoping that I can live the Orthodox faith in the Eastern Catholic Church.  I think my answer will come soon.  When there is clarity that my EC Church doesn't exactly profess the entirety of Orthodox faith, then it tells me two things.  First, I am no longer in communion with them.  Second, time make the jump official into Orthodoxy.
Actually, that is also my hope with Eastern Catholicism, but I realize that many Orthodox will not agree with the idea of being both (Orthodox & Catholic), so I didn't want to push that concept too hard.  Coming here to this forum was the first time I've expressed to anyone my thoughts about the possibility of becoming Orthodox and last night I felt really troubled about it.  As someone else mentioned earlier, I almost felt like I was trying to start an affair or something!

Everyone here has been so friendly and welcoming, but I'm already realizing I'm not at the point I may have thought I was when I made my first post.  I know that seems wishy washy, but I have to be honest with myself and with God.
I'd still love to remain here on this site because I still feel I could learn quite alot from many people here.  Hope that's okay!  Embarrassed 
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2012, 09:57:40 AM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything, I'm still holding out hope that I can still remain Eastern Catholic.
While I am certainly no expert in EC beliefs, it's my understanding that there are many things that conflict with Orthodox teaching. ISTM, that if one accepts Orthodox teaching in everything, then it follows as the night the day, that one is (or should be) Orthodox, and not anything else. Because anything other than Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy.
Quote
  I am hoping that I can live the Orthodox faith in the Eastern Catholic Church. 
Again, no expert, but I don't think that's at all possible. One may live an EC faith in the EC Church, but not the Orthodox faith. It either is or it isn't.
Quote
When there is clarity that my EC Church doesn't exactly profess the entirety of Orthodox faith
It doesn't. It can't. If the EC Church expressed the entirety of the Orthodox faith, it would be Orthodox, rather than another way of being Catholic.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2012, 10:15:06 AM »

I'd still love to remain here on this site because I still feel I could learn quite alot from many people here.  Hope that's okay!  Embarrassed 

You are weclo0me to remain and ask any questions that may arise.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2012, 10:35:44 AM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything, I'm still holding out hope that I can still remain Eastern Catholic.
While I am certainly no expert in EC beliefs, it's my understanding that there are many things that conflict with Orthodox teaching. ISTM, that if one accepts Orthodox teaching in everything, then it follows as the night the day, that one is (or should be) Orthodox, and not anything else. Because anything other than Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy.
Quote
  I am hoping that I can live the Orthodox faith in the Eastern Catholic Church. 
Again, no expert, but I don't think that's at all possible. One may live an EC faith in the EC Church, but not the Orthodox faith. It either is or it isn't.
Quote
When there is clarity that my EC Church doesn't exactly profess the entirety of Orthodox faith
It doesn't. It can't. If the EC Church expressed the entirety of the Orthodox faith, it would be Orthodox, rather than another way of being Catholic.


I understand your position.  That is why I'm seeking clarity.  From different sources, we ECs have been "taught" (I use it loosely) that we are everything the Orthodox are but are in communion with the Pope of Rome.  The Melkites especially believe in this.  I want to get clarity on that and the official word, what does it exactly mean?  To me it is a bit vague what it exactly means because the signals are mixed.  Right now my understanding is that I can pick up an Orthodox theology book, believe in what is said in there, and be a good Eastern Catholic.  If proven otherwise, then I am unfit for Catholic Communion.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2012, 10:36:38 AM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything

What about Orthodox ecclesiology?

We have the same structure in the EC
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2012, 10:54:39 AM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything

What about Orthodox ecclesiology?

We have the same structure in the EC

You don't. So long as you have a Pope of Rome with universal jurisdiction over the whole church, your ecclesiology is not Orthodox.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2012, 11:09:35 AM »

You don't. So long as you have a Pope of Rome with universal jurisdiction over the whole church, your ecclesiology is not Orthodox.

James

It is one of the things I am seeking clarity on.  There is a certain claim from the ECs about the matter.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2012, 11:13:35 AM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess
Logged
Delphine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 136



« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2012, 11:23:07 AM »

Everyone here has been so friendly and welcoming, but I'm already realizing I'm not at the point I may have thought I was when I made my first post.  I know that seems wishy washy, but I have to be honest with myself and with God.
I'd still love to remain here on this site because I still feel I could learn quite alot from many people here.  Hope that's okay!  Embarrassed 

There are plenty of people on these boards for whom Orthodoxy has had an impact in some way, or who are simply interested in Orthodoxy without having any intention to convert. Of course you can stay.

I'm glad this thread helped you to figure out where you currently stand.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: October 24, 2012, 11:42:43 AM »

Everyone here has been so friendly and welcoming, but I'm already realizing I'm not at the point I may have thought I was when I made my first post.  I know that seems wishy washy, but I have to be honest with myself and with God.
I'd still love to remain here on this site because I still feel I could learn quite alot from many people here.  Hope that's okay!  Embarrassed 

There are plenty of people on these boards for whom Orthodoxy has had an impact in some way, or who are simply interested in Orthodoxy without having any intention to convert. Of course you can stay.

I'm glad this thread helped you to figure out where you currently stand.
Agreed! This is one of the best sites on the net, being much more welcoming to visitors than others that I can think of.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #48 on: October 24, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

There are priests out there who believe this.  And some don't.  The current priest I am in contact with will not give me Communion unless I become Orthodox.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2012, 01:46:11 PM »

Papist I suggest you work your way up to the ranks of pope and then fully submit the Roman church to the Orthodox Church and whoever doesn't like it let the chips fall where they may Smiley
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2012, 01:49:08 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

There are priests out there who believe this.  And some don't.  The current priest I am in contact with will not give me Communion unless I become Orthodox.


Choy, this is the prevailing practice and belief. I wonder if that other priest's Bishop knows and/or has given his permission. My guess is he doesn't and hasn't.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2012, 01:51:40 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

This really disturbs me.
To commune we have to be in full communion, that means in all things, differences exits and prevent communion, the Pope being a big one, but there are others also.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2012, 02:12:51 PM »

As I said earlier, as much as I have accepted Orthodox teaching in everything

What about Orthodox ecclesiology?

We have the same structure in the EC

I was refering to "There's no salvation outside the Church" kind of ecclesiology. Wink I'm not a Feeneyite but according to Orthodox teaching the Orthodox Church is the Church and those outside of her are outside of the Church.

Christianity is not about subscribing into correct set of doctries. It's about being part of the Body of Christ.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 02:15:12 PM by Alpo » Logged

dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2012, 02:21:27 PM »

I would think it's more honest to say it's both, but what do I know. Smiley Or at least, the distinction holds in one direction, if not the other: To be in the Church/the Body of Christ, you must believe as the Church believes, which is correct belief, including doctrinal stances. Those who might share any one or several of those same doctrinal stances are not necessarily in the Church, however.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2012, 02:42:08 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

There are priests out there who believe this.  And some don't.  The current priest I am in contact with will not give me Communion unless I become Orthodox.


Choy, this is the prevailing practice and belief. I wonder if that other priest's Bishop knows and/or has given his permission. My guess is he doesn't and hasn't.

I have not experienced this personally but I have been told stories of Catholics receiving Communion in Orthodox churches and it seems more prevalent in Europe than in America.  I can't verify the authenticity of that story though.
Logged
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2012, 02:51:37 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

This really disturbs me.
To commune we have to be in full communion, that means in all things, differences exits and prevent communion, the Pope being a big one, but there are others also.




I have not actually gone through with receiving at any Othodox parish and after reading this I think that I have made my mind up that I will not.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2012, 03:56:59 PM »

For what it's worth, I have contacted a parish in the Western-rite Orthodox in Pa and the priest will hear my confession and I can recieve communion, He said there is a very fine line and the only real differance between us and them is the Pope, economia I guess

This really disturbs me.
To commune we have to be in full communion, that means in all things, differences exits and prevent communion, the Pope being a big one, but there are others also.

I've seen something to this effect in many Orthodox parish bulletins and the like: "Please understand … Communion is a sign of unity of our faith. Only Orthodox Christians that have prepared themselves through prayer, fasting, and periodic confession are permitted to participate in the Sacrament of Holy Communion."
Maybe it's just me, but if you're not Orthodox, it puzzles me why anyone would even want to receive Communion in an Orthodox church?
I certainly wouldn't try to receive Communion in a Catholic church, out of respect if nothing else. Respect for both.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2012, 04:11:03 PM »

I would think it's more honest to say it's both, but what do I know. Smiley Or at least, the distinction holds in one direction, if not the other: To be in the Church/the Body of Christ, you must believe as the Church believes, which is correct belief, including doctrinal stances.

Well I agree with you but IMO in many case among Christians today the emphasis is on wrong things. There is wisdom in that the Church doesn't declare new doctrines without any serious heresy demanding that.
Logged

Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2012, 04:15:22 PM »

Let me also add that the parish priest also said that all the congregation was made up of ex-Catholics so this may have some influence on his decision, the inquiry made by me and my grandfather into this was done mostly out of curiosity and a desire to fully participate in the trinidine liturgy. My grandfather is one if not the main reason I remain eastern catholic.... I hope that the Lord has mercy on me for this decision to not persue Orthodoxy till he passes.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2012, 05:28:27 PM »

Let me also add that the parish priest also said that all the congregation was made up of ex-Catholics so this may have some influence on his decision,

http://oca.org/questions/divineliturgy/receiving-communion


"For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, not the means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist."

I still wonder if that priest's bishop knows about this.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2012, 05:43:19 PM »

I'm sorry I have no answers to weather the bishop knows, but the Lord God does so I'll just leave this one to Him Smiley
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2012, 03:26:35 AM »

Let me also add that the parish priest also said that all the congregation was made up of ex-Catholics so this may have some influence on his decision, the inquiry made by me and my grandfather into this was done mostly out of curiosity and a desire to fully participate in the trinidine liturgy. My grandfather is one if not the main reason I remain eastern catholic.... I hope that the Lord has mercy on me for this decision to not persue Orthodoxy till he passes.

Are you sure that he wasn't saying that that was how you could be received into Orthodoxy? Some Orthodox churches will receive converts from the RCC (I use this to cover all rites) by confession and communion. I've never yet, thankfully, come across an Orthodox church which will commune an RC who is intent on remaining an RC, and it certainly wouldn't be correct to do so.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #62 on: October 25, 2012, 05:37:56 AM »

Well if I was going to be able to become orthodox that simply now I wish I would have went Smiley lol but nothing like that was ever said to me
Logged
soderquj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOAA, Metropolis of Denver
Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 25, 2012, 06:29:49 AM »

Depending on the parish that would be a option. I know in the Greek tradition it is by chrismation and them communion.
Logged

O God, cleanse me a sinner and have mercy on me.
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #64 on: October 25, 2012, 06:46:39 AM »

Sometimes I feel like I should even be baptised again ya know play it safe, just in case Wink
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #65 on: October 25, 2012, 06:54:43 AM »

Sometimes I feel like I should even be baptised again ya know play it safe, just in case Wink
As soderquj said for the Greeks we would Chrismate and then commune also, though I have heard of RCs being received by confession in other jurisdictions.

I know how you feel re. the baptism, though. I was received by Chrismation (I'm an ex-Protestant rather than RC) and in hindsight I often feel it might have been better to have been baptised, but I trust that the Chrismation I received has filled in anything lacking in my Anglican baptism. I'm not sure that I'd be so happy about the situation had I been baptised nowadays rather than almost 40 years ago, however.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukranian catholic
Jurisdiction: Philadelphia
Posts: 503



« Reply #66 on: October 25, 2012, 07:30:46 AM »

I think as long as we're obedient to whatever way we are asked to join Christs body everything will be just fine!
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #67 on: October 25, 2012, 01:38:13 PM »

According to my OCA priest, "re"-baptism only happens for those coming form congregations who do not believe in baptism the way the Orthodox do.  For example, Evangelical congregations do not think baptism is necessary for salvation, as much as "accepting Jesus in your heart as your personal Lord and Savior".  Catholics and the Reformation churches retain that belief in Baptism.  The Revivalists (Evangelicals, Pentecostals) do not, so they would need to be baptized with true baptism.


I, for one thing, want to go through Crowning.  Given how shaky the RC belief is about marriage (how it can be easily annulled).  Although the priest told me that it is not necessary.  If you are married, you are married.  Aw.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:39:40 PM by choy » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,320



« Reply #68 on: October 25, 2012, 02:25:52 PM »

I, for one thing, want to go through Crowning.  Given how shaky the RC belief is about marriage (how it can be easily annulled).  Although the priest told me that it is not necessary.  If you are married, you are married.  Aw.

I know, right?  Grin After I attended an Orthodox wedding for the first time, I told my husband, I wanted to get married again!
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.229 seconds with 95 queries.